Armed insurgencies usually come up with only external support? This is NOT a hard and fast historical rule. You are blatantly attempting to explain away India's ineffectual COIN efforts. I've seen too many Indian articles blaming the Maoist on China, Nepal, and the Martians to give this excuse much creedance.
Yes indeed it is not a hard & fast historical rule, that's precisely why i used the word
"Usually". Let me be more specific - "successful armed insurgencies have come up with external support". The examples are all around for us to see, Kashmir, Afghanistan, Vietnam etc..
India's ineffective COIN efforts? Hate to say this my friend but i guess that you are not fully aware of latest developments in this field. As with terrorism in Kashmir the Indian Army has done a very good job nearly eradicating the menace. As regard's to the Maoist problem, yes till date the COIN operations have been a mixture of failure & success. While this phenomenon has been nearly eradicated in certain states it is rather active and blossoming in a few other. But this large scale Maoist insurgence is a recent phenomena and efforts are being made to tackle it, we will see the results in the near future.
As for the alleged Chinese support to the Maoist, India's Home Minister is on record saying that with the current intelligence available with him there is no proof that China is backing the insurgents. So where is the ambiguity? As of now GoI is not pointing a finger at China and that is good enough to convince me.
What hypocrisy! Why is it that when a bomb explodes in India, it's terrorism when a bomb explodes in China, it is an armed insurgency? An armed insurgency implies organization above and beyond covert cells that plant bombs and suicide attacks.
emphasis did but no more.
You are simply inferring things from my post. I never said that the bomb explosion in Xinjiang was not terrorism. I mere pointed it out as proof towards the existence on an armed insurgency. Don't confuse the two. If i am endorsing a point doesn't me that i am automatically negating its opposite.
This is a lie. Tibet was firmed under control by normalization of relations in the 1970's. Don't insinuate that it was American's cutting off support that doomed the Tibetans. The Dalai Lama was long gone and the PLA had competently suppressed the area long before Nixon came around.
Nixon's policy change had a major impact on the armed rebellion. I will take your word for it that PLA might have been largely successful in neutralizing the insurgency. But only in the absence of American support did the insurgency completely die down.
But the fact remains there are no armed insurgencies in China and there ARE insurgencies in India. Instead of blaming others and whining, do something about it. Even your all important external support that "all" armed insurgencies need, is not invulnerable, if you have to will to press the state actors. A will that India is sorely lacking.
I am largely in agreement with you on the highlighted part. Indeed the level of insurgency that exists in India is much larger than what is happening in China. But they are many reasons to it. Let me not get into them for it will not serve any purpose and we will also be deviating from the topic at hand.
Secondly whom am i blaming & for what? Didn't quiet get you there. As far as i remember, i had mere point out that armed insurgence's only blossom with external support. How is that blaming anyone?
As for the italics part. Indeed the external support by state actors is not "invulnerable", but there are certain limitations to it. While China has been fortunate in this regard that Pakistan listens to it when it comes to Uighur's using the terror infrastructure present there, while India has been less fortunate. Either the Pakistanis understand that they cant afford to piss off two giants at once or either they are indeed grateful to China for gifting them with Nuke & Missile tech. The truth is somewhere between the two. They sympathies with the Uighur's but cant afford not have Chinese support.
India is not so fortunate in this case. Either we make them understand by talking to them that Terror will not help (as the current government is doing) or we make war. I don't see either of these options helping. The mistrust simply runs too deep, largely on the part of Islamabad than New Delhi.